The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into stores and hotels on Thursday, in its latest opinion backing Second Amendment rights.

The high court's 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments. It comes shortly after the court found that marijuana users can't be completely banned from owning firearms.

It's a win for President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which argued the law violates the Second Amendment. The measure was sometimes referred to as a "vampire rule" because it required people with guns get permission to enter, like vampire lore says bloodsuckers need an invitation to enter a home.

Hawaii argued that the 2023 measure ensured private owners could decide whether they wanted firearms on their property. The state passed the law as thousands more people got legal permission to carry guns in the wake of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that found the Second Amendment gives most people the right to have guns in public.

About four other states have enacted similar laws, though presumptive restrictions for guns on private property open to the public have also been blocked elsewhere.

Hawaii also restricts guns in places like parks, beaches and restaurants that serve alcohol, but those rules weren't before the court. They are being challenged in lower courts, however.

The suit before the Supreme Court was filed by a gun rights group, the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, and three people from Maui. A judge originally blocked the measure, but an appeals court allowed it to be enforced. Trump's Republican administration backed the Supreme Court appeal.

The Second Amendment Foundation applauded the ruling. "This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens, and we're grateful the Supreme Court saw through the ruse," said Alan Gottlieb, its founder and executive vice president.

The gun-control group Everytown Law called the decision disappointing but pointed out that business owners can still post signs forbidding firearms on their properties. "The Supreme Court may have changed the default rule, but it cannot take away a private property owner's authority over their own land," said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation.

The two Second Amendment decisions this term are the latest in a series of gun cases that have come before the Supreme Court in the wake of its 2022 ruling that led to a flood of challenges to firearm restrictions around the country. The justices have since struck down a ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that enable rapid firing, but upheld a federal gun law intended to protect domestic violence victims as well as strict regulations on firearms known as ghost guns, which are nearly impossible to trace.

The curtain may have come down for President Donald Trump at the Kennedy Center but the tarp stays up for now.

Matt Floca, executive director and chief operating officer of the performing arts venue, told a federal court Saturday that the institution had complied with an order to remove Trump's name from the facade. In a filing, Floca said the board of trustees and the center had removed "all physical signage on the Kennedy Center building and grounds, including the front portico, that purports to rename the Kennedy Center after President Trump."

But for onlookers who have gathered on the plaza in front of the center over the past day hoping to witness a dramatic moment symbolizing the limits of Trump's power, it was virtually impossible to see whether the signage was gone. A tarp hung over the scaffolding constructed for workers to perform that task. It was unclear when the tarp might be removed to reveal the original lettering that had endured for decades: "The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts."

A reporter was able to peer through a slight opening in the tarp, which was pulled tightly against the wall, and saw that the letters for Trump's name were no longer affixed to the building.

By the end, the Kennedy Center's leadership had dug in against a federal judge's order to erase Trump's name from the building. Two courts rejected the institution's last-minute request to retain Trump's name pending an appeal. After severe thunderstorms raked Washington on Friday evening, the Kennedy Center sought one more extension before complying with a noon Saturday deadline.

Those who pushed for the scrubbing of Trump's name were in a celebratory mood. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex officio member of the board who sued to remove references to the president from the building and the center's operations, was spotted in the plaza late Friday and Saturday morning. She posted a video to social media that purported to show her performing the "Trump dance" in one of the Kennedy Center's great halls.

"Today's victory is the beginning of returning the Kennedy Center to the American people," Beatty said in a statement. "The rule of law prevailed, and that is worth celebrating."

Leo Bartholomaus, a recent graduate of Syracuse University who lives in Virginia, said he was walking by the Kennedy Center on Friday afternoon after visiting the National Mall to see events related to this weekend's UFC match at the White House. He said he was not happy that Trump added his name to the building.

"My grandmother had a big love of the arts," he said. "I've been here to see 'The Lion King.' I wasn't a fan of Donald Trump putting his name on it. I thought it was better as the Kennedy Center."

The removal of Trump's name closes one of the more unusual chapters in the history of the Kennedy Center, which began construction in 1964 and was dedicated to the memory of the slain president, Democrat John F. Kennedy. At what is typically one of the few relatively nonpartisan spaces in Washington, Trump has wielded tremendous influence over the venue during his second term.

Though he rarely discussed the Kennedy Center during his 2024 campaign, Trump moved quickly to oust the institution's leadership when he returned to office in January 2025 and replaced it with a board of trustees that named him chairman. His name was quickly added to the building.

While the removal of his name marks a setback for Trump, he is moving forward with plans to reshape the physical landscape of the nation's capital in ways that have few modern parallels.

When a federal judge shot down a Trump administration policy of holding immigrants without bond last December, it seemed like a serious blow to the president's mass deportation effort.

Instead, a top Justice Department official insisted the ruling wasn't binding, and the administration continued denying detainees around the country a chance for release.

By February, the district court judge, Sunshine Sykes, was fed up. Sykes, a nominee of President Joe Biden, accused Trump officials in a ruling that month of seeking "to erode any semblance of separation of powers," adding that they could "only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist."

Hardly isolated, the case illustrates a broader pattern of defiance of lower court decisions in President Donald Trump's second term.

The failure of Trump officials to follow court orders has been highlighted most notably in individual immigration cases. But a review of hundreds of pages of court records by The Associated Press also shows an extraordinary record of violations in lawsuits over policy changes and other moves.

In the second Trump administration's first 15 months in office, district court judges ruled it was violating an order in at least 31 lawsuits over a wide range of issues, including mass layoffs, deportations, spending cuts and immigration practices, the AP's review of court records found. That's about one out of every eight lawsuits in which courts have at least temporarily blocked the administration's actions.

The Republican administration's power struggle with federal courts — which is testing basic tenets of U.S. democracy — reflects an expansive view of executive authority that has also challenged the independence of federal agencies, a president's ethical obligations, and the U.S.'s role in the international order.

The violations in the 31 lawsuits are in addition to more than 250 instances of noncompliance judges have recently highlighted in individual immigration petitions — from failing to return property to keeping immigrants locked up past court-ordered release dates.

Legal scholars and former federal judges said they could recall at most a few violations of court rulings over the full four-year terms of other recent presidential administrations, including Trump's first time in office. They also noted previous administrations were generally apologetic when confronted by judges; the Trump administration's Justice Department has been outright combative in some cases.

"What the court system is experiencing in the last year and a half is just qualitatively completely different from anything that's preceded it," said Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who studies federal courts and is tracking litigation against the Trump administration.

Though Trump officials eventually backed down in about a third of the 31 lawsuits, legal experts say their treatment of court orders poses serious dangers.

"The federal government should be the institution most devoted to the rule of law in this country," said David Super, a constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University. "When it ceases to feel itself bound, respect for the rule of law is likely to break down across the country."

The White House's aggressive policy moves have prompted a barrage of lawsuits — more than 700 and counting.

In October, U.S. District Judge William Smith took little time to conclude Homeland Security officials were flouting one of his orders. Smith, a nominee of George W. Bush, had blocked them from making billions of dollars in disaster relief funding to states contingent on cooperation with the president's immigration priorities.

A U.S. special forces soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has been charged with using classified information about the mission to win more than $400,000 in an online betting market, federal officials announced Thursday.

Gannon Ken Van Dyke was part of the operation to capture Maduro in January and used his access to classified information to make money on the prediction market site Polymarket, the federal prosecutor's office in New York said.

He has been charged by the Justice Department with unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud and making an unlawful monetary transaction. He could face years in prison.

Van Dyke, 38, was involved in the planning and execution of capturing Maduro for about a month beginning Dec. 8, 2025, according to the federal prosecutor's office. Even though he signed nondisclosure agreements promising to not divulge "any classified or sensitive information" related to the operations, prosecutors say the Army soldier used this information to make a series of bets related to Maduro being out of power by Jan. 31, 2026.

"This involved a U.S. soldier who allegedly took advantage of his position to profit off of a righteous military operation," FBI Director Kash Patel said in a post to social media.

A telephone number listed for Van Dyke in public records was not in service. There was not yet an attorney listed for him in court documents.

Polymarket, one of the largest prediction markets in the world, said it had found someone trading on classified government information, alerted the U.S. Department of Justice and "cooperated with their investigation."

"Insider trading has no place on Polymarket," the company said in a statement.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates prediction markets, announced Thursday it had filed a parallel complaint against Van Dyke.

That complaint alleges that Van Dyke moved $35,000 from his personal bank account into a cryptocurrency exchange account on Dec. 26 — a little over a week before U.S. forces would fly into Caracas and seize Maduro.

Van Dyke used more than $32,500 to make a series of bets on when Maduro might be removed from power, according to the complaint. He placed those bets between Dec. 30 and Jan. 2, with the vast majority occurring the night of Jan. 2 — just hours before the first missiles would fall on Caracas.

In the early hours of Jan. 3, President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform a photo of the now-captured Venezuelan leader, wearing a gray sweatsuit, headphones and a blindfold.

The bets Van Dyke made on Maduro leaving power resulted in "more than $404,000 of profits," the complaint said. Bets on three other Venezuela-related contracts netted the solider more than $5,000, according to the document.

"The defendant was entrusted with confidential information about U.S. operations and yet took action that endangered U.S. national security and put the lives of American service members in harm's way," said Michael Selig, the commission's chairman.

The massive profits from the well-timed bets aroused public attention days after the raid and brought bipartisan calls for stricter regulation of the markets where people can wager on just about anything.

Officials allege that shortly after the operation, Van Dyke put most of the money he won in a foreign cryptocurrency vault and then into a new brokerage account. He also asked Polymarket to delete his account, saying he had lost access to his email associated with the account, according to the federal prosecutor's office.

Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday in a victory for conservatives who have long sought to incorporate more religion into classrooms.

The 9-8 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a boost to backers of similar laws in Arkansas and Louisiana. Opponents have argued that hanging the Ten Commandments in classrooms proselytizes to students and amounts to religious indoctrination by the government.

In a lengthy majority opinion, the conservative-leaning appeals court in New Orleans rejected those arguments in Texas, saying the requirement does not step on the rights of parents or students.

"No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin," the ruling says.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that challenged the Texas law on behalf of parents said in a statement that they anticipate appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights," they said in the statement.

The mandate is one of several fronts in Texas that opponents have fought over religion in classrooms. In 2024, the state approved optional Bible-infused curriculum for elementary schools, and a proposal set for a vote in June would add Bible stories to required reading lists in Texas classrooms.

The decision over the Ten Commandments law reverses a lower federal court ruling that had blocked about a dozen Texas school districts — including some of the state's largest — from putting up the posters. The Texas law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott took effect in September, marking the largest attempt in the nation to hang the Ten Commandments in public schools.

From the start, the law was met almost immediately by a mix of embrace and hesitation in Texas classrooms that educate the state's 5.5 million public school students.

The mandate animated school board meetings, spun up guidance about what to say when students ask questions, and led to boxes of donated posters being dropped on the doorsteps of campuses statewide. Although the law only requires schools to hang the posters if donated, one suburban Dallas school district spent nearly $1,800 to print roughly 5,000 posters.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, called the ruling "a major victory for Texas and our moral values."

"The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it's important that students learn from them every single day," he said.

Tuesday's ruling comes after the appeals court heard arguments in January in the Texas case and a similar case in Louisiana. In February, the court cleared the way for Louisiana to enforce its law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the Texas ruling "adopted our entire legal defense" of the law in her state. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey also signed a similar law earlier this month.

"Our law clearly was always constitutional, and I am grateful that the Fifth Circuit has now definitively agreed with us," Murrill said in a statement posted to social media.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson, in a dissenting opinion joined by four others on the court, wrote that the framers of the Constitution "intended disestablishment of religion, above all to prevent large religious sects from using political power to impose their religion on others."

"Yet Texas, like Louisiana, seeks to do just that, legislating that specific, politically chosen scripture be installed in every public-school classroom," Higginson wrote.